There are many ways to discuss this whether you agree with the name or you don't. But in some people's eys, it's basically like having a team called the "Ni***rs". It's hard to imagine a franchise with that kind of identity existing in today's society. That would be overt racism.

But with the Redskins, it is a little different because anyone can say "Oh they're just trying to honor First People (that's the new PC phrase for Native American), they're not hurting anybody." That's the thing though. No one really knows for sure if that's actually the case or if they're openly trying to oppress First People. Whites have had a long history of oppressing subordinate groups and they've had a lot of time to practice to get good at it. This could just be an innocent mistake or a deliberate attempt to skew the perception of First People. Because of that "mystery", so to speak, you can't really say definitively if it actually has racist intentions. That's part of the strategy.

To play devil's advocate though, what about Notre Dame's nickname? The Fighting Irish? That nickname paints a pretty poor and stereotypical picture of a person with Irish heritage. Though Irish people have had their share of oppression in history, they're still white and that puts them on top of the social pecking order. What were the intentions behind that name? How does that honor or bring pride to their social group?

It's a debateable topic, to be sure. Social justice is an interesting field.

I don't think Notre Dame is a valid comparison. The idea of Irish people as fighters has served as both a positive and negative stereotype throughout history.

May 4th, 2013, 4:33 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 3987Location: Davison Mi

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

There s another side to consider IMO as well. Let's face it, the only time Indians, native Americans, first people, whatever you want to call it, comes up in conversation, is in college aps, casinos or on reservationslor team names. Lets be brutally honest here, the traditional native American lifestyle is dead, and has been for a long time. Team names like the Seminoles, the redskins, and the Indians should be viewed as a type of legacy IMO. Let's face it, having a team named after you SHOULD be an honor.

Now I get why the name of the redskins is in particularly offensive. Back in the day it was meant as a racial slur. But words change with time. Their meanings shift, and their power grows and fades. IMO it is no longer a derogatory term. I can't help but wonder how many small boys looked up while walking into that stadium and asked" what is that man with the feathers in his hair dad?"

Maybe a long time ago dads reaction might have used the words savage, or something else negative, but in today's world I see the explanation would be much more positive, and therefor pass a bit of a legacy on to the next generation.

If the redskins change their name, IMO it would have to be to a specific tribe that resided in that area. To change it to another subject altogether would e a huge loss to native American lore.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

May 4th, 2013, 9:09 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2327

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

rao wrote:

conversion02 wrote:

DJ-B wrote:

Agreed. Is Something Racists/Sexist/Etc if the people being "targeted" by the name/comment/etc don't find it to be Racist/Offensive/etc?

Not in my book, its just the Politically Correct side of people trying to dominate everything. If the Native Americans were up in arms about it, it would be entirely another story.

That said, I think the name Redtails is awesome, so if they ever changed it that would be a pretty sweet name to go to. Then again I love war Nicknames , and wouldnt be offended if there was a team named the Kamikazie's so its pretty obvious I don't have a PC bone in my body.

Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is an issue in the native community and has been for years. This battle has been fought and lost many times. It's been won at the high school level for the most part, but not so much in the collegiate or pro levels. Too much money to throw around.

FYI, there's no pride by the name. So whoever said that is out to lunch.

If those statements are true for the majority of Native American people, then the name needs to be changed now. They shouldn't need national support or anything like that, it's just common sense to change a name that is considered a racial slur. Now if Dan Snyder knows this and is ignoring it, I feel fine about the government stepping in on the issue.

You can still put me down as one vote for Redtails, it's a great name to transition into.

Fully Agree. I thought the person drumming this up was doing it for 15m of extra fame, but having been corrected that this is considered a racial slur (specifically its use in reference to native american bounties), its ridiculous it hasnt already been changed.

May 5th, 2013, 7:43 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9596Location: Dallas

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

to make it easy, could we just call them the Blueskins? Or would the Avatar natives be offended?

Agreed. Is Something Racists/Sexist/Etc if the people being "targeted" by the name/comment/etc don't find it to be Racist/Offensive/etc?

Not in my book, its just the Politically Correct side of people trying to dominate everything. If the Native Americans were up in arms about it, it would be entirely another story.

That said, I think the name Redtails is awesome, so if they ever changed it that would be a pretty sweet name to go to. Then again I love war Nicknames , and wouldnt be offended if there was a team named the Kamikazie's so its pretty obvious I don't have a PC bone in my body.

Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is an issue in the native community and has been for years. This battle has been fought and lost many times. It's been won at the high school level for the most part, but not so much in the collegiate or pro levels. Too much money to throw around.

FYI, there's no pride by the name. So whoever said that is out to lunch.

Further, what I find odd about my "findings" is that I went on Yahoo fully expecting the LIberal PR machine to be in full effect and have ANY stories to the contrary of the name being "offensive" being buried somewhere after page 3 of my search results. Nope... Not even close.

And, like I said, there have been numerous accounts and depictions of indians being fans of the team that had no geographical connection whatsoever. They take pride in "fighting" or playing against the "Cowboys" twice a year, and they pay attention for no other seemingly connection than the name.

What's more, if the name didn't exist the debate wouldn't exist. IMO there isn't some altruistic goal that would come out of changing the name. It doesn't make us a "better" society, and lost in it will be people doing research such as the 3rd article I posted. We will just simply be a "more vanilla" society free from debate and look toward other petty dissimilarities to complain about.

May 6th, 2013, 11:18 am

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 3987Location: Davison Mi

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

Pablo wrote:

to make it easy, could we just call them the Blueskins? Or would the Avatar natives be offended?

I just recieved a letter of complaint from a Mr. Papa Smurf regarding your comment, asking that it be removed under penalty of lawsuit!

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

Last edited by regularjoe12 on May 6th, 2013, 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

May 6th, 2013, 12:46 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3039Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

I happened to stop by this thread while on lunch and I have to call foul on something I read in your post footsoldier. Now I'm not calling you out per se, I just want to adjust the perspective a little.

Here's what you'd said: " Whites have had a long history of oppressing subordinate groups and they've had a lot of time to practice to get good at it."

The truth of the matter is that for as long as there have been people, someone has gained the upper hand and subjogated those who weren't strong enough. This isn't a race thing, it's completely human!

If it wasn't the Egpytians abusing the Jews, then it was the Babylonians abusing the Egyptians, if it wasn't the whites subjogating the Native Africans, it was the Native Africans subjogating each other and grabbing their weaker counterparts and using them as trade for what the "white man" had that they wanted. It became a source of trade, as dispicable as it was. So to say this was race based isn't really accurate. It's a species thing.

As for the topic as a whole: At what point in time is forgiveness need to be granted? Not a single native born African American, has experienced the horrors of slavery. But yet, that terrible history or our country is used like a club over the rest of society. Reparations are demanded of those who did not commit the atrocities, and until forgiveness is OFFERED and ACCEPTED, this country will NEVER move past this debacle of our history.

At the same time: Political correctness is a disgusting entity in and of itself. To create a standard in which no one is offended is an impossibility. I'm offended at the gender neutrality being pushed! Women are different from men as they were designed to be! So why don't we just give both versions of the same species the RESPECT they desere and call it a day. Why must a "journeyman" now be called a licensed plumber person or some such non-sense? There is so much more that we could be spending time, money and effort on, than all of this nonsense!!!

Washington Redskins, a historic football team that draws fans together, and has played in decades of memorable games, why mess with it?

Let me ask this as a return question: IF political correctness can influence and change things like this because "it's not fair", then can they not do the same to the Constitution? It's a document created by a bunch of "white men (2 whammies right there), from over 200 years ago. It's "outdated, and irrelevant" to today's more "advanced society"? So where do you stop this monstrosity of thinking?

_________________2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

May 6th, 2013, 1:03 pm

Footsoldier32

Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: February 28th, 2007, 12:13 pmPosts: 975

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

rao wrote:

I don't think Notre Dame is a valid comparison. The idea of Irish people as fighters has served as both a positive and negative stereotype throughout history.

I have to disagree somewhat. You are right that it can be viewed as a positive because it is a point of pride for some Irish. But if you were to look at it from a social justice standpoint the fighting becomes the main feature of the Irish community. It becomes the first and only impression an uneducated or ignorant person makes about that particular social group. Fighting can be perceived in a number of different ways. Perhaps it's simply a reference to boxing. However, to someone who is horribly PC, they might view the fighting stereotype to be a result of the drinking stereotype. We are all aware of the stereotype that says all Irish people are heavy drinkers (and in some cases have tempers as a result). I think if Irish people were black, more people would be up in arms about the label "Fighting Irish" because they would associate the two stereotypes and in that case, that would put a poor image on Irish people and as a result; hold them back from social resources or power. Being viewed as an angry drunk with a short temper paints someone as uneducated, uncivilized and possibly even primitive person. I guess that's what I was driving at.

WarEr4Christ wrote:

I happened to stop by this thread while on lunch and I have to call foul on something I read in your post footsoldier. Now I'm not calling you out per se, I just want to adjust the perspective a little.

Here's what you'd said: " Whites have had a long history of oppressing subordinate groups and they've had a lot of time to practice to get good at it."

The truth of the matter is that for as long as there have been people, someone has gained the upper hand and subjogated those who weren't strong enough. This isn't a race thing, it's completely human!

If it wasn't the Egpytians abusing the Jews, then it was the Babylonians abusing the Egyptians, if it wasn't the whites subjogating the Native Africans, it was the Native Africans subjogating each other and grabbing their weaker counterparts and using them as trade for what the "white man" had that they wanted. It became a source of trade, as dispicable as it was. So to say this was race based isn't really accurate. It's a species thing.

As for the topic as a whole: At what point in time is forgiveness need to be granted? Not a single native born African American, has experienced the horrors of slavery. But yet, that terrible history or our country is used like a club over the rest of society. Reparations are demanded of those who did not commit the atrocities, and until forgiveness is OFFERED and ACCEPTED, this country will NEVER move past this debacle of our history.

At the same time: Political correctness is a disgusting entity in and of itself. To create a standard in which no one is offended is an impossibility. I'm offended at the gender neutrality being pushed! Women are different from men as they were designed to be! So why don't we just give both versions of the same species the RESPECT they desere and call it a day. Why must a "journeyman" now be called a licensed plumber person or some such non-sense? There is so much more that we could be spending time, money and effort on, than all of this nonsense!!!

Washington Redskins, a historic football team that draws fans together, and has played in decades of memorable games, why mess with it?

Let me ask this as a return question: IF political correctness can influence and change things like this because "it's not fair", then can they not do the same to the Constitution? It's a document created by a bunch of "white men (2 whammies right there), from over 200 years ago. It's "outdated, and irrelevant" to today's more "advanced society"? So where do you stop this monstrosity of thinking?

I agree and disagree with you on a number of things. You are right that abuse has occurred from and to many different ethnic groups throughout time and that it can be a natural thing. However; it's different now because of human evolution. Education has spread throughout the globe and the human race should be more civilized as a result. I say that because we all live on one planet and it's our only place to live. We as humans have to work together to maintain it and keep it healthy. Having negative perceptions about a certain group and actively acting out on them to withold that group from equality can potentially be damaging to the planet.

I maintain that whites have been the biggest culprit to social injustices over the last couple centuries. Especially in the US. There are many examples. Betraying treaties signed with First People Nations, slavery, putting Japanes people into camps during WW2 and the whole civil rights era are all good (albeit broad) examples. It's a deep issue that covers a lot of things but why is it that (in America at least) have all social groups with the exception of the straight white male had to fight for equal rights?

Also, I'm with you on the whole reparations thing. I have never felt like a white family that had nothing to do with ever owning another person should have to pay another family some kind of reparation because one's ancestors owned and likely mistreated the others. It's not like that white family owns the black family now or have they ever had a hand in mistreating that family. They are completely different people and they owe each nothing. Is it a gesture of good will? Yes, but it is not necessary because that family did not commit any crimes against the other.

I don't necessarily understand PC completely but I believe it works to remove potentially damaging labels on a social level for all groups. Words are powerful tools if you know how to use them right and can either be very beneficial or damaging. The differences between people are good things but have created problems because people don't understand the other groups. A lot of people forget the one universal thing that we all have in common though. . . we are all human. We physically function the exact same way. We all feel the same emotions. Psychologically, we work the same way. We all have the same basic physical and emotional needs. We're all human, we just don't all look the same or have the same interests. That's ok. But we as a society have to view an individual as an individual and not as a white or colored, as a straight or GLBT, as able bodied or disabled, religious or atheist, rich or poor.

I don't think Notre Dame is a valid comparison. The idea of Irish people as fighters has served as both a positive and negative stereotype throughout history.

I have to disagree somewhat. You are right that it can be viewed as a positive because it is a point of pride for some Irish. But if you were to look at it from a social justice standpoint the fighting becomes the main feature of the Irish community. It becomes the first and only impression an uneducated or ignorant person makes about that particular social group. Fighting can be perceived in a number of different ways. Perhaps it's simply a reference to boxing. However, to someone who is horribly PC, they might view the fighting stereotype to be a result of the drinking stereotype. We are all aware of the stereotype that says all Irish people are heavy drinkers (and in some cases have tempers as a result). I think if Irish people were black, more people would be up in arms about the label "Fighting Irish" because they would associate the two stereotypes and in that case, that would put a poor image on Irish people and as a result; hold them back from social resources or power. Being viewed as an angry drunk with a short temper paints someone as uneducated, uncivilized and possibly even primitive person. I guess that's what I was driving at.

The other issue with the comparison is that the "Fighting Irish" moniker requires you to already have preconceived notions about Irish people and a knowledge of their stereotypes to turn it into something negative. The Redskin name is said to be a racial slur, a word with no other meaning than to be a degrading way to refer to a specific group. I don't deny Notre Dame's nickname could be turned into a negative, but Notre Dame's history with Irish people and the fact that it already was used in a positive manner before they took it as their own make it something completely different from the Redskins issue.

I love the decision. The Redskins are... the Redskins. If you find it offensive, find a way to get over it.

Nobody expected him tos ay anything different. However if they lost the copyright protection it will cost them Millions upon Millions in merchandising issues, and legally they can still be forced to change. Not saying I want it to or not, but Snyders comment/opiniomn means nothing as we already knew how he/the team felt.